PK htiw klaw eriF

But the problem is that once they're voted into office by and large they serve only the interests of corporate lobbyists. Sure, if the public makes enough stink they'll act to avoid being called out during the next election, but day-to-day they're far more interested in who's giving away dollars. Oh I completely agree. Far too many of our representatives suck at actually representing the people who vote them in office. I just don't know what would be a better system. I mean I'd love to limit lobbying powers, but there already is quite a bit on the books to do that, and yet big business still finds a way. As for a true democracy, it's just unfeasible. I don't have time to sit on committees and read through a bunch of federal stuff to make informed decisions on public policy and budgeting. Unfortunately the people we vote to do that don't seem to have the time either Well, we could always decrease the monetary rewards for elected officials, institute term limits, and crack down much harder on lobbyists and corporate influence. Most likely will not happen though, because the ones who could do those things are the ones who would be negatively impacted by them.

Sorry, I disagree with the idea that there's both micro and macro perspectives of tyranny. If you get one person that is all "boo I hate our government," that is not a reflection of the government being tyrannical. Tyranny requires some level of large scale consensus. Some guy that goes "I can't murder people without the government getting pissy! What a tyrannical hell hole I live in" is a poor indicator as to whether or not the government is believed to be tyrannical. Social contracts exist for a reason. The word becomes meaningless if someone wants to thump their chest and go "we live in a tyrannical police state" because they're an anarchist and the overwhelming amount of people that live in said state completely disagree with him. It's straight up fear mongering because these people realize that it's the places like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union that were police states, and if they can convince people that we're just like those states, then they can help gain momentum for their movement. I was commenting on the perception of tyranny from the point of individuals. A better worded version would be: To some individuals the government existing is a form of tyranny, and anything it does is in some way oppressing them. To the average person, the government is not tyrannical until it starts actively harming citizens, strictly limiting rights, etc. The former are wrong.

Would this mean that any level of social contract indicates a police state? To certain Individuals, yes. To the average person, no. To some people, ANYTHNG the government does is tyrannical.

Obviously what I posted went straight over your head. Not surprisingly. The fact is that you see bogeymen around evey corner and make mountains out of molehills. Have fun with the fear porn!

I read somewhere that it was confirmed that there won't be multi or dual classes. What?!?!? I just checked the wiki and it says there multiclassing is still bring considered.

I don't understand why we are even using real life situations in PE. IRL, a knight could not call upon the power of his soul to heal himself, strengthen his attacks, or move at greater speed, unless I missed something.

No.

Somehow I think that Americans are a bit better off than Russia(where you can be imprisoned for public demonstration) or China(where the government controls everything). Unless I missed the part where some tea baggers went to prison or where my Internet is censored.

I'm opposed to them being unbeatable, because I feel that it would be an arbitrary limit slapped on. I have no qualms with them being extremely powerful and difficult to defeat, but no invincibility please. Firstly, I didn't say they would be invincible, just that it would take an army with siege weapons perhaps to defeat them. I don't know how powerful spells are in PE, but unless there are superpowerful spells, then it would be almost impossible to defeat them with only a handful of people. Also, it's not an arbitrary limit, some things are not physically possible, and some things are. They can be beat if humans have the numbers and planning. Perhaps you can lead an attack on a dragon in the game with a small army at your disposal. My mistake, I took " shouldn't be beatable" the wrong way I guess.

Most of the folks you'll find arguing in this thread are very indoctrinated in that way of thinking, and do not see the forest through the trees.Tip: In the upper left corner of your reply box is a button to use BBCode Mode. That will allow you to use the old format of quoting.And you're right on tariffs. Those would solve a lot of problems. Yet that's a taboo subject and you'll get labeled a tinfoil hat wearer or an old fuddy duddy when a large majority of the population is brainwashed into thinking 'free trade' is all that, and a similar number brainwashed into thinking change is always for the better. We don't call it 'change' much anymore though, that's passe, and isn't as good a word as others in the battle for minds. Use words like 'evolution' and 'innovation' that way the opposing argument sounds bad right off the bat. Oh please, nobody would call you a tin foil hat wearer or fuddy duddy. We prefer "bat**** conspiracy nut" these days. Sorry our Illuminati indoctrination prevents us from seeing the truth presented by the prophet Alex Jones, Mother Russia, and Ron Paul.

@AGX I agree with your points, but I have to correct you on the 2nd Amendment. It actually says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". You missed two commas, whose inclusion really turn the amendment into a garbled cluster****. You were closer than most right-wingers though, they seem to be allergic to "regulated". On libertarians: I think it is funny as hell how they talk like they are the most patriotic and loyal 'mericans EVAR, but end up agreeing with Russian propaganda most of the time. Any one else see a bit of humor in that.

Well this has been a fine bit of information. Woedica sounds quite inspired.

I'm opposed to them being unbeatable, because I feel that it would be an arbitrary limit slapped on. I have no qualms with them being extremely powerful and difficult to defeat, but no invincibility please.

And while you may declare that you and your buds from down the street should be considered a militia, you don't have a clear chain of command, and wouldn't come, as a militia, to the military in a time of emergency. You'd instead just be flat out drafted and turned into a proper military soldier. Sure "well regulated" may have changed it's meaning over the histories, but so has "militia". In the times of the founders, a Militia was basically the current US Army Reserve/US National Guard. You show up for a few weeks a year to sort out drills and practice shooting, as well as retain a military commission based on that service (Daniel Boone, for example, was a Colonel in the Kentucky Militia). No neighborhood watch group, or gun club, or whatever you want to say, can claim that their militia will have carry over into the US military in terms of rank. Also, from the same guys who made the constitution you have the First and Second Militia Act(s) of 1792, The first simply saying that the President could call up the militias to active service, the second saying http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm So, the 2nd amendment basically says that the soldiers in the Reserve or National Guard have a non-infringed right to bare arms, but the average Joe doesn't. And the Militia act of 1903 established the National Guard to replace the militias constructed under this and previous systems. Arrrgh... I hate the way quote works now, even with the flipping of the BBCode switch it's still more work. I've seen your argument before and there have been plenty of law professors to rebut it. But at the end of the day, there's no point in arguing about it... The murders are only going to get more frequent because men do not think clearly when under heavy emotional stress, like the stress brought on by a system designed to bleed them dry and keep them impoverished. What am I saying? The right to bear arms is irreverent when the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is so downtrodden. There have also been plenty of law professors to support his arguments. When reading the US constitution you have to take in to account that at the time it was written, there was no universally accepted rule on how to use commas correctly.

I personally don't care how dragons look, but I want them to be incredibly powerful, somewhat rare, and have quite a bit of lore behind them. I don't want Skyrim dragons, because not only were they too common, but I saw one get killed by a god damn bear once.

I would prefer a blank slate to origins, and origins to a set background. I prefer a blank slate because it allows me to create any background(that fits reasonably in to the game world) for my PCs.

The name just doesn't seem to roll off the tounge. Definitely will be following the development though.

You know he hates writing romance, right? Why have them at all if you want one of the best writers in video game history to be forced to write things he can't stand? How does that improve the game in any way? Or do you just want MCA to suffer? Well, those Ruskis are big on watching Westerners suffer.

I think I'm going to get this from GOG. I remember putting a ridiclous amount of time in to MotB.

Well yeah, but they kind of were bitches, so at least it fit their character.

The deleted parts are out. No cooldowns, you can miss, and level scaling will be exactly the same as BG. You know that BG had level scaling,right? The scaling you are afraid of is Bethsedas and it won't be in this game. As for no combat XP, tough luck, is in, and frankly, is a good thing. I thought that you would get XP if you defeated a random pack of bandits, but that it would be determined by the encounter, not the number of bodies. Anybody know for sure?

I saw Movie 43 yesterday. It was like a live-action Family Guy.

The first two problems have already been shot down, no idea about level scaling, and I'm not sure about the XP thing(hasn't been discussed recently IIRC).

I like romances(in all media) that are treated as any other complex relationship. I don't want it to be considered the highest form of relationship for every character(it might be for some characters, but not every character), or reduced to "flirt, bang, happily ever after" or some other shallow crap. I want it written with the characters in mind, and not break the characters to satisfy someone's need for shipping. I don't want romance slapped on a character to fill a quota or because some people request that the character in question be "romanceable". Romance(like any other complex relationship) only works well when it fits the characters involved, and should not be if included if it doesn't mesh well with the characters. Also, I wouldn't want them to shy away from romances that fail or end tragically.

So you don't want explosive power growth?